From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 2 20:50:52 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C1491065674 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 20:50:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A28E8FC19 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 20:50:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 722 invoked by uid 399); 2 Jun 2009 20:50:47 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.100?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 2 Jun 2009 20:50:47 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4A2590A6.2010109@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:50:46 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon References: <3B3FEBB417C04B77AED8998347C99585@multiplay.co.uk> <03083008@serv3.int.kfs.ru> <4A1D7320.2030000@FreeBSD.org> <20090527191746.GA8089@lonesome.com> <67308765@bb.ipt.ru> <20090602204638.GC4425@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <20090602204638.GC4425@lonesome.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Boris Samorodov , ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: emulators/linux_base-f10 = Fedora 8? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:50:52 -0000 Mark Linimon wrote: >>>> Then mark the port BROKEN, or some such. User confusion is a bad thing. :) >>> s/BROKEN/IGNORE/ >> Just wonder, can/should it be implemented automagically via >> the repocopy script? > > I have no opinion, but will note that as long as you don't connect > the ports to the category Makefile, you don't need to worry about > things like this :-) The problem that I responded to was users who surf into those directories that expect useful things to happen. That problem isn't fixed by not hooking them up. If it's easy to add this feature to the repocopy script then I would suggest it be done. Doug